T.Dayakar Reddy V. The Union of India

WP/16851/2023

AI Insights

The case revolves around a writ petition filed by T.Dayakar Reddy, challenging a public notice issued by the Secunderabad Cantonment Board directing the removal of rooftop hoardings on various properties. The petitioner argued that the notice was illegal and violated principles of natural justice as it was issued without proper procedure and without giving the petitioner an opportunity to contest the removal. The respondents, including the Union of India and the Secunderabad Cantonment Board, defended the notice citing public safety and compliance with a government order (G.O.Ms.No.68). However, the court found that the notice did not adhere to the statutory requirements for such actions, leading to the decision to allow the writ petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 724720 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 11-12-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Cantonments Act, 2006
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: GADI KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SUDHAKAR REDDY
• Keywords: Mandamus; Natural Justice; Public Safety; Roof Top Hoardings; Writ petition
• Section: 151 CPC; 297; 318

Judgement Text

"132s21 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION NO: 16851 OF 2023 Between: AND 1 2 T.Dayakar Reddy, S/o. T.Anand Reddy, Age 63 Yrs, Rl/o Plot No 81, Ground Floor, Behind Gieen Park Avenue, Chennai Shopping Mal, Suchitra Circle, Kompally Road, Hyderabad 500067 ...PETITIONER The Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary, For Defence, New Delhi. The Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Represented by its The Chief Executive Officer, Sardar Patel Road, Court Compound, Secunderabad- 500003 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Direction especially in nature of Mandamus declaring the order passed by Respondent No.2 dated 12.06.2023 bearrng No. SCB/RS/Rooftop Hoardings/2]2311156 as illegal and consequentially set aside the operation of nolice dated 12.06.2023 in SCB/RS/Roof top. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavrt filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 not to remove roof top hoardings belonging to Petitioner on the roof top of the below mentioned premises Serial No. 1 2 3 4 5 Location of the Hoarding Structure P.No 11,2nd Floor,Gopal Rao Chulka Colony, Trimulgherry Secbad No. of Hoard ing Structures 1No H.no 15 and16, Opp Satyam Computers, Kharkhana, Secunderabad Bunglow No.5, Karkhana Secunderabad H-no 3, D Santr Sadan,Near Wine Shop, Kharkhana, Secunderabad 1No P.No 172,Vasavi nagar,Karkhana Bazar, secundera bad 1No Between: The Chief Executive Officer, Secunderabad Cantonment Compound, S.P. Road, Secundera bad-500003. Board, Court ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No.2 AND 1 T.Dayakar Reddy, S/o. T Anand Reddy, Age 63 Yrs, R/o Plot No 81, Ground Floor, Behind Green Park Avenue, Chennai Shopping Mall, Suchitra Circle, Kompally Road, Hyderabad 500067 ...RESPONDENT No.IM/RIT PETITTONER The Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary, For Defence, New Delhi. (R-2 not necessary party in this petition) ..RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT No.1 Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petrtron, the Hrgh Court may be pleased to vacate the lnterim Order dated 03.07.2023 in WP No.16851 of 2023 in respect of the impugned Public Notice dated 12.06.2023 and dismiss the Writ Petition, in the interest of justice under thc circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SUDHAKAR REDDY, REP. FOR SRI CHETLURU SREENIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI cADl PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA counsel for the Respondent No.2: sRl K.R.KOTESHWAR RAO, SC FOR CANTONMENT BOARD 2 2No 1No The Court made the following: ORDER lA NO: 2 OF 2023 THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No 168s1 0F 2fJ23 ORDER: Heard Mr.Sudhakar Reddy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.Chetluru Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner on record, Mr.Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, and Mr.K.R.Koteshwar Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 Cantonment Board. 2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking the prayer as follows: \"To issue a Writ Direction especially in nature of Mandamus declaring the Paper Publication notice dated 12.06.2023 bearing No.SCB/RS/Rooftop Hoardings/2023/1156 issued by Respondent No.2 as illegal and consequentially set aside the operation of notice dated t2.06.2023 in SCB/RS/Roof top Hoardings/2023 / I 156.\" 3. The e h P iti ner in brief : t The petrtioner is carrying on business of outdoor advertising under the name and style of \"Libra Advertising, R/o.Plot No.B1, Ground Floor, Behind Green park Avenue, Chennai Shopping Mall, Suchitra Circte, Kompally Road, Hyderabad- 500067 and eking out his livelihood. The petitioner in the course of his business had erected roof top hoardings on the robf top of premises i.e., 1) plot No.11, 2nd Floor, Gopal Rao Chutka Colony, Tirmulgherry, Secunderabad, 2) H.no 15 & 16, Opp Satyam Computers, Kharkhana Secunderabad, 3) Bunglow No.5, Kharkhana, Secunderabad, 4) H.No.3, D Santi Sadan, Near Wine Shop, Kharkhana, Secunderabad and 5) p.No. 172, Vasavi Nagar, Kharkhana Bazar, Secunderabad by maintaining all safety standards, by paying all necessary rents to the owners of the buildings and also paid alt necessary taxes without any default. It is further the case oF the petitioner that the 2nd respondent - Secunderabad Cantonment Board had issued a General Public Notification in Deccan Chronicle News paper dated 72.06.2023 that all the roof top hoardings along with it structures be removed immediately in view of public safety on or before 30.06.2023. Hence the present writ petition. PERUSED THE RECORD, 4. The impugned Public Notace dated LZ.O6.2O2} bearing No.SCB/RS/Roof Top Hoardings,/2O23/1-LS6 issued by the 2'd respondent - Cantonment Board to the petitioner, reads as under: \"PUBLIC NOTICE The Secunderabad cantonment board has resolved that all roof top hoardings along with its structures be removed in view of public safety. Therefore, the advertisement agencies having their advertisement hoarding structures on the roof top of the buildings in Secunderabad Cantonment area are hereby directed to remove the advertisement hoarding structures before 30.06.2023, Agencies and Owners of the building failing to comply with notice will be levied with penalty as decided by the board and action will be initiated as per cantonments Act 2006. The owner of building will be personally liable for any damages caused or of life. The owners of the respective buildings having advertisement hoarding structures are to noted that it is responsibility of the owners to ensure that the structures are removed by 30'n )une 2023, failing which action will be initiated as per Cantonments Act 2006 and subsequently will be liable to pay penalty as decided by Board.\" 5. The True Extract of the Ordinary Board Meeting of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad Held at the Conference Hat!, Office of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad on 'Thursday' the 29th day of September, 4 2022 at 15OO hours, in particular, the retevant paras, read as under: \"[15] To consider imposition of penalty on unauthorized advertisement hoardings, flexis, wall writing, wall posters, unauthorised erection of banners and cut outs and other advertisement elements placed within the area of Secunderabad Cantonment with a view to restrict such acts of unauthorized erections, etc., that is not only dangerous to the pedestrians but also eyesore giving shabby look to the public places. The matter was discussed in detail in the last Board meeting referred above. The Board vide CBR referred above resolved to pend the matter for next meeting to address two issues: i) Authorised space for erecting of flexis / Banners ii) Reduction of penatty charges. It is proposed that cut out hoarding will be a maximum size of 4'x 6'and will be put in a manner that does not obstruct movement of traffic as well as visibility of traffic. Further, the banners and cut out hoardings shall be made of environmental friendly material. No banners/cut out hoardings shall be placed to the poles and Trees. R,esolution: The CEO apprised the Board that this matter was placed in last meeting and pended for two issues i.e. i) Authorised space for erection of flexis/Banners ii) Reduction of penalty charges, In ) this regard, the authorized places have been mentioned on the agenda side and the penalty charges are being proposed at par with GHMC areas. Shri l. Ramakrishna, Nominated Member, after examining the Government of Telangana GO expressed that the matter in the GHMC has been finalized after detailed discussions and after formation of committees that proposed these regulations. He opined that similar kind of exercise should be undertaken by the Cantonment Board. Further, he requested to form a committee making CEO and himselF as members of the committee for this purpose. The PCB informed that there is no necessity to redo the entire exercise for the Cantonment and recommended to levy the penalty charges/rates at par with GHMC. The pCB further stated that in the earlier Board Meeting, the matter was pended for two reasons and now both have been addressed. After the detailed discussion, the Board resotved to approve authorised spaces for erection of flexis/Banners on the agenda side and the penalty charges for unauthorized advertisement elements. The CEO is authorised to formulate a procedure for implementing the same from O1.11.2O22.,, 6. The True Extract of the Ordinary Board Meeting of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad Held at the Conference Hall, Office of the Cantonment Board, 6 Secunderabad on 'Wednesday'the loth day of May, 2o23 at 11OO hours, reads as under: \"[13] To consider the note submitted by Revenue Section for \"Regulating advertisement hoardings on roof top of private buildings in respect of safety & security of the residents\". As per the said report, this office is collecting Advertisement Fees for Hoardings erected on roof tops of private buildings. The charges are being collected as per the rates fixed vide CBR No.24, Dt.15.10.2014 as per the rates of the GHMC and later the same were revised vide CBR No.28, Dt.19.10.2020. Further, it is to inform that the roof top hoardings are posing great threat to the nearby residents and commuters during heavy rains. The Municipal Administration and Urban Development (GHMC) Department, Government of Telangana has drafted a new Advertisement Policy vide GO MS No.68, Dt.20,04,2020 wherein it has been mentroned that advertisement elements which are at huge herghts from the ground level have collapsed a number of times, although certified as stable, thereby creating havoc. Subsequently, the Government has issued operative guidelines for granting permission only for advertisement elements below 15 feet from ground level. The revenue collected through advertisement fee from Hoardings on Roof top buildings for the year 2022-23 is Rs. 1,08,40,920/-. 7 Therefore, keeping in view the safety and security of the residents of the Cantonment, the matter is placed before the Board for decision on removal of rooftop hoardings on private buildings in Secunderabad Cantonment. The relevant papers are placed on the table. Resolution: The CEO apprised the Board about regulating advertisement hoardings on rooftop of private buildings in respect of safety of the public. By removing these hoardings, approximately there will be a loss of Rs.l Crore revenue per annum to the Board, however in view of safety of the public the hoardings should be removed. Shri J. Ramakrishna, Nominated Member informed the Board that the rooftop hoardings be considered where a structural safety report is submitted by the owners of the houses, and he said that a committee may be constituted for studying the structural safety. PCB stated that human life is more important than the revenue being generated, hence, the Board may direct the agencies to remove the hoardings in view of the safety of the public. The Board resolved that all the rooftop hoardings along with its structures be removed in view of public safety on or before 3oth )une, 2O23, failing which action to be taken against the violators as per 8 the Board resolution vide CBR No. 15, dt.29,O9.2022 and as per provisions of Cantonments Act, 20O6.\" 7. A bare perusal of the G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 2O.O4.202O clause 2,b) reads as under: *b) All the advertisement elements which are above 15 feet height from ground level shall not be permitted. Those advertisement elements which are already existing on the ground on the buildings exceeding 15 feet from oround level and have comoleted their allotted term shall be removed immediatelv bv GHMC. Those dvertisement elements which have an onqoino allotment period shall be removed immediatelv after moletion of the tim oeriod. Furt er if anv advertise ment element as removed for whatever reason. no shiftino nermts n lchall he : ccor.lerl rlrd tha AIN shall l.a automaticallv cancelled.\" 8. The relevant sections of The Cantonment Act, 2O06 regarding imposition of taxation, reads as under: \"( 17) the control and supervision of places where dangerous or offensive trades are carried on so as to secure cleanliness therein or to minimise any injurious, offensive or dangerous effects arising or likely to arise therefrom; (18) the regulation of the erection of any enclosure, fence, tent, awning or other temporary structure of whatsoever 9 material or nature on any land situated within the cantonment and the fees chargeable in respect thereof.\" 9, Counter affidavit filed bv the 2nd respondent, in oarticular, Paras 7,9. 1O and 11, reads as under: \"7. I further humbly submit that, regarding collection of hoarding charges/fee from time to time from the Petitioner, the Board is empowered to collect such license fee as per Section 67 of the Act 2006, as stated above. However, for the reasons explained in the Board Resolution dated 10.05.2023 which was passed in consonance with G.O.Ms. No. 68 of GHMC, the Board has decided to remove all rooftop hoarding structures of the Petitioner and others located in the Cantonment area and after rts removal, if the Petitioner is intended to submit fresh Application for erection of advertisement elements below 15 reet from the ground level and the same will be considered and the left over license fee for the remaining period will be adjusted. Therefore, for mere payment of license fee of hoardings will not create any right to the Petitioner to prevent the Board from issuing the impugned Public Notice calling for the owners to remove the rooftop hoardings. 9. I further humbly submit that, the contention of the petitioner is that, the Public Notice issued to remove the hoardings without following due process of law, is factually not correct, as the grounds for tssuance of the tmpugned Public Notice were clearly menttoned and also qave an tame to remove hoardinos oooortunitv and breathinq t0 bv vi ue of a Pub ic Notice w erebv more than a eek' sb n ed vt of th tmDuoned Public Notice issued for demolition f the hoardinos. the Board has no intent on to close the business of the D itioner and he can ve well esta ust n re- h ho structures below 15 feet from the qround level after obtainino reo isite sanction fro the Board. Therefore, there will not be any loss of revenue or livelihood to the petitioner, as alleged. 10. I further humbly submit that, the impugned pubtic Nottce was issued to remove the rooftop hoarding structure on two counts - one is to protect safety and security of the public, the other one is to prevent shabby look to the Cantonment due to such hoardings; and as a policy decrsron, the owners of such rooftop hoardings were directed to remove the same, however they may re_erect therr hoardrngs below 15 feet from ground level, as is permrssible in GHMC area, and the present Notice is issued in consonance with G.O.Ms.No.68 of GHMC, as detailed supra. In view of the same, the Writ petitioner is required to remove the rooftop hoarding structures from his p roperty. 1 1. I further humbly submit that, a Writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution against any Order passed or Notice issued by any statutory authority only on three circumstances viz., (i) violatron of prjnciples of natural justice, (ii) without jurisdiction and (iii) sufficient ti e to remove the rooftoo hoardinos. Secondly, the Secunderabad Cantonment Board, represented by the Chief Executive Officer, had issued the impugned Public Notice having jurisdiction to issue such Notice as per the provisions of the Act, as detailed supra. Lastly, the Board has not violated any statutory procedure and ordering to remove rooftop hoardings is followed by the Board Resolution which was passed in consonance with G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 20.04.2020 of GHMC and accordingty the impugned Public Notice has been issued to remove rooftop hoardings to safeguard safety and security of the public and also to prevent shabby look of the Cantonment. In view of the above stated grounds, the petitioner miserably failed to establish any prima facie case to interfere with the lmpugned Public Notice issued by the 2\"d Respondent and the Writ Petition is devoid of any merits.\" 1O. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner adopted the reply affidavit in W.P.No.16613 of 2O23 and also the legal pleas raised thereunder. violation of statutory procedure. In the present case, the Petitioner is not falling in any of these three exceptions, as the Respondents have not violated the principles of natural j ustice, as alleged ds, as subseouent to Board's Resolution, the impuoned Public Notice has been issued c llinq uoon the attention of the owners of buitdtnosw ere ro ftoo oardino s ures ha e o h tI ct v ected e.r -ae iha Adrr+ Artenctes n , t2 RELEVANT PROVISIONS: Section 297 ot the Cantonment Act, 2006, reads as under: \"297. Power to require buildings, wells, etc., to be rendered safe.- Where in a cantonment any building, or wall, or anything affixed thereto, or any well, tank, reservoir, pool, depression, or excavation, or any bank or tree, is in the opinion of the Chief Executive Officer, in a ruinous state or, for want of sufficient repairs, protection or enclosure, a nuisance or dangerous to persons passing by or dwelling or working in the neighbourhood, the Chief Executive Officer, by notice in writing may, require the owner, or part- owner or person claiming to be the owner or part- owner thereof, or, failing any of them, the occupier, thereof, to remove the same or may require him to repair, or to protect or to enclose, the same in such manner as he thinks necessary; and, if the danger is, in the opinron of the Chief Executive Offlcer, imminent, he shall forthwith take such steps as he thinks necessary to avert the same. Section 318 of the Cantonment Act, 2006, reads as under: 318. Service of notice, etc.- ( 1) Every notice, order or requisition issued under this Act or any rule or bye- law made thereunder shall, save as otherwise expressly provided, be served or presented- (a) by giving or tendering the notice, order or requisition, or sending rt by post, to the person for whom it is intended; or ll (b) if such person cannot be found, by affixing the notice order or requisition on some conspicuous part of his last known place of abode or business, if within the cantonment, or by giving or tendering the notice, order or requisition to some adult member or servant or his family, or by causing it to be affixed on some conspicuous part of the buildings or land, if any, to which it relates. (2) When any such notice, order or requisition is required or permitted to be served upon an owner, lessee or occupier of any building or land, it shall not be necessary to name the owner, lessee or occupier therein, and the service thereof shall, save as otherwise expressly provided, be effected either- (a) by giving or tendering the notice, order or requisition, or sending it by post, to the owner, lessee or occupier, or, if there are more owners, lessees, or occupiers than one to any one of them; or (L) if no such owner, lessee or occupier can be found, by giving or tendering the notice, order or requisition to the authorised agent, if any, of any such owner, lessee or occupier, or to an adult member or servant of the family of any such owner, lessee, occupier, or by causing it to be affixed on some conspicuous part of the building or land to which it relates. ( 3 ) When the person on whom a notice, order or requisition is to be served is a minor, service upon his guardian or upon an adult member or servant of his family shall be deemed to be service upon the minor.\" I] 11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainiy puts forth the following submissions: (i) That the impugned public Notice is in violation of the principles of natural j ustice, (ii)- It is without jurisdiction, (iii) It is in violation of statutory procedure laid down under the Secunderabad Cantonment Act, (iv) That the respondent - Cantonment Board had adopted a pick and choose policy and issued the notices. Learned counsel for the petitioners placing on the submissions puts forth above, prayed that the writ petiuon should be allowed as prayed for. 12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd Respondent - Cantonment Board on the other hand placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit and puts forth the foltowing submissions: (i) The Board has pubtished a public Notice on 12.06.2023 in Shakshi (Tetugu), Deccan Chronicle (English) and Hindi Milap (Hindi) newspapers, whereby the owners of the respective buildings having advertisement hoarding structures are to be noted that ri is the responsibility of the owners to ensure that the structures are removed by I5 ( ii) ( iii) (iv) 30.06.2023, failing which action would be initiated as per the Act, 2006. Thereafter, the individual notices were also issued to the Advertisements Agencies and owners oF the buildings on which the advertisement hoardings structures are erected to remove the same before 30.06.2023. The issue regarding regulating advertisement hoardings on rooftops of private buildings in respect of the safety and security of the residence was discussed at length in the Board Meeting held on 10.05.2023 and in the said Board Meeting by taking into consideration of the New Advertisement Policy of Government of Telangana issued vide G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 20.04.2020, though there is a loss of revenue of Rs. 1.00 Cr. Per annum, since human life is more important that the revenue being generated, the Board has also resolved that all the rooftop hoardings along with the structures be removed, in view of the public safety on or before 30.06.2023, failing which action would be taken against the violators, and accordingly the said instruction was issued to the petitioner to remove the hoardings, keeping in view of the safety of the public. The Cantonment Board is removed the rooftop hoarding structures under the provisions of the Cantonment Act and therefore there is no illegality in issuing the impugned notice on two grounds - One is to protect safety and security of the public, the other t6 DISCUS N AND CON CLUSION: one is to prevent shabby look to the Cantonment due to such hoardings, and as a policy decision. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent _ Cantonment Board placed reliance on the Judgment dated 1t.07.2023 passed in W.p.Nos.36328 of 2022 and batch and contended that the writ petition has to be dismissed. I 13. A bare perusal of the extract of the Ordinary Board Meeting of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad Held at the Conference Hall, Office of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad on 'Thursday' the 29th day of September, 2022 at 1500 hours clearly indicates two issues - Firsfly - to consider rmposition of penalty on unauthorized advertisement hoardings, which however, is not the subject issue in the present writ petition, and Secondly - the proposal that cut out hoarding will be a maximum size of 4'x 6'and will be put in a manner that does not obstruct movement of traffic as well as visibility of traffic. Further, the banners and cut out hoardings shall be made of environmental friendly material and no banners/cut out hoardings shall be placed to the poles and Trees. The penalties to be imposed are as follows: Rs.50,000/- Per Day. Rs.10,000/- Per Day Rs.50,000/- Per Day sl. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 VIOLATTON Penalty amount (in Rs.) Erection of Unauthorized Advertisement element Rs.1,00,000/- Per Day above 15 feet in hei ht from ground level Erection of Unauthorized Advertisement element below 15 feet in hei ht from round level Use of flashing lights/Non static illumination in Rs.50,000/- Per Day Advertisement without ermrssron Size of the Advertisement/Name board exceeding Rs.100/- Per Sq.ft. Per Day 15olo Front0 e of the buildin Use of Moving, rotating or variable message Advertisin Devices Operating an Advertisement element without valid Structural Stabilit Certificate Advertisement on moving vehicle where the advertisement is placed in a manner of any additional board, structure or projection on the body of the vehicle Rs.10,000/- per violation Use of illuminated Advertisements with brightness more then allowed limit Rs.10,O00/- per violation Wall Writings Rs.1,000/- for each wall writin Wall Posters Rs.2 000 - for each ost l7 eI. Unauthorized erection of Banners & Cut outs Rs.5,000/- for each ban ner & Cutout L4. A bare perusal of the G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 20,04.2020 clause 2.b) clearly indicates that all the advertisement elements which are above 15 feet height from ground level shall not be permitted and those advertisement elements which are already existing on the ground on the buildings exceeding 15 feet from qround level and have comol e ed their allotted term shall t be removed immediatelv bv GHMe- Those ad rertisement elements which have an onqorns allotln€o! periqdJhall be removed immediatelv after mpletion of the time oeriod. I8 G.O.Ms.No.6B dated 20.04.2020 which pertains to the Guidelines From granting new permission for advertisement elements below 15 feet from ground level and also for regulating the existing advertisement elements below 15 feet from ground level in GHMC area. 15. The plea of the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Secunderabad Cantonment Board that the Board Resolution dated 10.05.2023 was passed inconsonance with G.O.Ms.No.68 of GHMC and the Board has decided to remove all rooftop hoarding structures of the petitioners and others located in the Cantonment area and after its removal, if the petitioners intend to submit fresh Application for erection of advertisement elements below 15 feet from the ground level and the same would be considered and the left over lrcense fee for the remaining period will be adjusted is untenable rn view of the simple fact that G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 20.04.2020 on the basis of which the Board Resolution dated 10.05.2023 had been passed is totally contrary to the specific instructions as rndicated in G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 20.04.2020, 2.b) which ctearly states that tho adve isement elements which are alreadv exi tinq t on the qroundont e buildinqs exceedinq 15 fee rom t l9 ve be removed immediatelv bv GHMC. Those advertisement elements which have an onooinq allotment period shall be r com letion of the time ert This Court opines that the Secunderabad Cantonment Board did not consider the issue of the 'onqoinq allotment period' (as stated in the counter aFfidavit at para 7). 16. A bare perusal of Section 297 of the Cantonment Act, 2006 clearly indicates a standard procedure to be followed by the Cantonment Board pertaining to 'issuance of notice' and Section 318 deals with'service of notice'. In the present case admittedly as borne on record and even as admitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Secunderabad Cantonment Board, the procedure under Section 297 and 318 of the Cantonment Act, 2006 (referred to and extracted above) had not been followed. Because even in the counter affidavit filed by 2nd respondent at Para 11 it is specifically stated that a Public Notice had been issued and admittedly as borne on record the mandatory procedure under Section 297 and 318 of the Cantonment Act, 2006 (referred to and extracted above) had not been followed. n vel nd il terms sh t a i i a I 20 L7. A bare perusal of the contents of the impugned public Notice dated 12.06.2023 clearly indicates that it is a final notice issued to the petitioners and not a Show cause Notice and the same indicates that as per the resolution of the Board it had been 'decided that all the rooftop hoardrngs along with its structures be removed in view of the public safety. Therefore, the petitioners are directed to remove the rooftop hoarding structure on or before 30th June, 2023, failing which action will be taken by way of levying penalty and as per the provisions of Cantonments Act, 2006 very clearly indicates that the mandatory procedure under Sections 297 and 31g of the Cantonments Act has not been followed. It is also in fact observed in order dated 27.06,2023 passed in W.p.No.16337 of 2023 as under: \"Notice before admission. Sri Gadi praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of lndia takes notice for respondent No.1. Sri K.R.Koteswar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Secunderabad Cantonment, takes notice for respondent No.2. This Writ petition is filed chailenqing ihe pubtic notice, dated 72.06.2023, issued by respondenr No.2, requiring the advertisement agencies having their advertlsement hoarding structures on the rooftop of the buildings in Secunderabad Cantonment area arc directed to remove the same on or before 30.06.2023 and turther it is 2l I t I also indicated that if the sarne is not done before the sa.id date, action will be initiated as per the Cantonments Act, 2006 and they were liable to pay penalty as decided by the-Board. Aggrieved by the said public notice, the present writ petition is filed. . Sri K.R.Koteswar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-Board submitted that unless and until individual notices are issued to respective owners of the advertisement hoardings, no further action would be taken solely basing upon the public notice. dated 12.06.2023. ln the circumstances, post the matter on ll .O7.2023 for filing counter-affidavit. Pending further orders, respondent No.2 is directed not to take any further action pursuant to the public notice, dated 12,O6.2023. However, this order will not be come in the way of respondent No.2-Board to take dtrY, appropriate action, in accordance with law, by following due process of law.\" 18. The submission of the learned counsel Sri K.R.Koteshwar Rao, learned Standing Counsel appeartng for the 2nd respondent - Cantonment Board, recorded in the order dated 27.06.2023 passed in W.P.No.16337 of 2023 clearly rndicates that the assurance of the learned counsel before the Court had not been adhered to and that unless and until individual notices are issued to respective owners of the advertisement hoardings, no further 1) action would be taken solely basing upon the public notice dated 72.06.2023 exercise of issuing individual notices and following the mandatory procedure as laid down under Section 297 and 318 of the Cantonment Act, had not been followed, as borne as record. 19. It is true that this Court in its Judgment dated 11.O1.2O23 passed in W.p.No.36328 of 2022 and batch at para 23 observed as under: \"23. As per the above G.O., the intention of the respondent and the reasons for imposing restrictions on advertisement use is considering the public safety, road safety, aesthetic character and visual appearance of the city. In this regard, the G.O. imposes restriction on the advertrsement elements. The restrictions that are imposed by the respondents on the height, distance and all the aspects are only to achieve the object of public good, safety and the aesthetics of the city. The G.O. impugned satisfies the proportionality test and there is no illegality in imposi ng the restrictions.,, T !s ki an b a nsi sof r rss nce th s onc ned i.e G. .Ms.No.68 dated 20.04.2020 nor it is the subiect issue he wrl on. o challen r tn s s n 6 da 1n th th r sen wrl o G 23 oetition. The issue in the present case is clear violation of the standard orocedure laid down in the Secunderabad Cantonment Act oertaining to Sections 287 and 318 and alear vi rlian . J G Ms.No AQ. AtlaA )A d) o20 lau o 2.b). . 20. This Court ooines tha there is clear violation of principles of natural iustice in the oresent case, This Court is of the firm ooinion that the oetitioners ouo t to have been out on notace orior to issuino the oresent imDuoned Memo da d 3O.1O.2O15 bv the 2nd resoondent and Draor too assr noth lmDuo ned or f dated 30.10.201 de 5 bv the 2nd resoo dent in all fairnes and admittedlv as borne on record. t e oetitioners have not been heard orior to assr n t tm therefore h imouoned are in clear violation of audi altera Dartem ru le. 2t. This Court oDines that the Sec u ndera bad Cantonm nt Board is an uthoritv to determine the q uestions q riqhts of subiects has duty to act iudiciallv and ResDondent Cantonment Board cannot decide aoainst the raqhts of the oetitioner without hearinq 24 ti loner or n ano o the et reDresent his or her case in the manner known to Iaw. This Court is of the firm ooinion that the imouoned notice is a f inal rder which has b n oassed admittedl v without providin o an ooportunitv of hearinq to the oetitioner and which ven accordinq to the learned counsel aooearinoon behalf of resoondent i contrarv to the sta nd a rd the cedu own u n29 fth Cantonment Act 2006. 22. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2OO9) 12 SCC 40 in Umanath Pandey & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another at paras 10 & 11 observed as under : Para 10: The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized States is of supreme irnportance when a quasi- judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. These principles are well settled. The first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as audi alteram partem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the best limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should apprise the party 25 determinatively of the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitaated. Thus, it as but essentaal that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play. The concept has gained significance and shades with time. When the historic document was made at Runnymede in 1215, the first statutory recognition of this principle found its way anto the \"Magna Carta\". The classic exposition of Sir Edward Coke of natural justice requires to \"vacate, interrogate and adjudicate\". tn the celebrated case of Cooper v, Wandsworth Board of Works the principle was thus stated: (ER p. 42O). \"Even God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam before he was called upon to make his defence. 'Adam' (says God), 'where art thou? Hast thou not eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?\" Since then the principle has been chiselled, honed and refined, enriching its content. Judicia! treatment has added light and 26 luminosity to the concept, like polishing of a diamond. Para 11 : \"Principles of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by the courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority while making an order affecting those raghts. These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice,,. 23. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2O23) 6 Supreme Court Cases 1 in \"STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. RAJESH AGARWAL AND OTHERS,, at para 85 observed as under : \"85. Fairness in action requires that procedures which permit impairment of fundamental rights ought to be just, fair, and reasonable. The principles of natural justice have a universal application and constitute an important facet of procedural propriety envisaged under Article 14. The rule of audi alteram partem is recognised as being a part of the guarantee contained in Article 14. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Tulsiram patel has categorically hetd that violation of the principles of natural justice is a violation of Article 14. 21 The Court held that any State action in breach of natural justice irnplicates a violation of Article 1a: (SCC p. 476, para 95) \"95. The principles of natural justice have thus come to be recognised as being a part of the guarantee . contained in Article 14 because of the new and dynamic interpretation given by this Court to the concept of equality which is the subject-matter of that article. Shortly put, the syllogism runs thus: violation of a rule of natural justice results in arbitrariness which is the same as discrimination; where discrimination is the result of State action, it is a violation of Article !4: therefore, a violation of a principle of natural justice by a State action is a violation of Article 14. Atticle 74, however, is not the sole repository of the principles of natural justice. What it does is tg guarantee that any law or State action violating them will be struck down. The principles of natural justice, however, apply not only to legislation and State action but also where any tribunal, authority or body of men, not coming within the definition of \"State\" in Afticle 72, is charged with the duty of deciding a matter. In such a case, the principles of natural justice require that it must decide such matter fairly and impartially.\" 24. In a decision of a three-Judge Bench of Apex Court reported in ( 1981) 1 Supreme Court Cases 664 in .SWADESHI COTTON MILLS v. UNION oF INDIA,,, the I8 issue was whether the Central Government was required to comply with the requirements of audi alteram partem before it took over the management of an industrial undertaking under Section 18-AA(1)(a) of the Industries (Develbpment and Regulation) Act, 1951. R.S. Sarkaria, J.speaking for the majority consisting of himself and D.A. Desai, J. laid down the following principles of law: (SCC p. 689, para 44) observed as under: \"44.ln short, the general principle - as distinguished from an absolute rule of uniform application seems to be that where a statute does not, in terms, exclude this rule of prior hearing but contemplates a post- decisional hearing amounting to a full review of the original order on merits, then such a statute would be construed as excluding the audi alteram partem rule at the pre-decisional stage. Conversely, if the statute conferring the power rs silent wrth regard to the giving of a pre- decisional hearing to the person affected and the administrative decision taken by the authority involves civil consequences of a grave nature, and no full review or appeal on merits against that decision is provided, courts will be extremely reluctant to construe such a statute as excluding the duty of affording even a minimal hearing shorn of all its formal trappings and dilatory features at the pre-deosional stage, unless, viewed pragmatically, it would paralyse the administrative progress or frustrate the need 29 for utmost promptitude. In short, this rule of fair play 'must not be jettisoned save in very exceptional circumstances where compulsive necessity so demands'. The court must make every effort to salvage this cardinal rule to the maximum extent possible, with situational modifications. But, to recall the words of Bhagwati, J., the core of it must, however, remain, namely, that the person affected must have reasonable oppoftunity of being heard and the hearing must be a genuine hearing and not an empty public relations exercise. \" 25. In \"MANGILAL V. STATE O .P., reported in (2O04) 2 SCC page 447, a two-Judge Bench of Apex Court held that the principles of natural justice need to be observed even if the statute is silent in that regard' In other words, a statutory silence should be taken to imply the need to observe the principles of natural justice where substantial rights of parties are affected: (SCC pp.453-54, para 10) observed as under: \"7O. Even if a statute is silent and there are no Dositive words in the Act or the Ru made thereunder, there could be nothins wrono in soellino out the need to hear the Darties wh e riohts and ,nterest are kelv to be affected bv the orders that mav be oas ed. and makinq it a reouirement to follow a fair orocedure before takin a decision. rovides otherwise. The unless the statute principles l0 of natural justice must be read into unoccupied interstices of the statute, unless there is a clear mandate to the contrary. No form or procedure. should ever be permitted to exclude the presentation of a litigant's defence ot stand. Even in the absence .of a provision in procedural laws, power inheres in every tribunal/court of a judicial or quasi_ judicial character, to adopt modalities necessary to achieve requirements of natural justice and fair play to ens.rre better and proper discharge of their duties. Procedure is mainly grounded on the principles of natural justice iruespective of the extent of its application by express provision in that regard in a given situation. It has always been a cherished principle. Where the statute is sitent about the observance of the principtes of natural justice, such statutory silence is taken to imply comptiance with the principles of natural justice where substantial rights of parties are considerably affected. The application of natural justice becomes presumptive, unless found excluded by express words of statute or necessary intendment. ts aim is se u u e r nt mt a rna of usti Prt c, f a e ot nt h suDDlement it. These rules oDe rate onlv tn areas not e n aw vati m e e rea ean toanend and notanendinthemselves.\" I lt 26. In *CANTONMENT BOARD v. TARAMANI DEVI\", reported in (1992) Supp (2) SCC page 5O1, a two-Judge Bench of this Court held that the rule of audi alteram partem is a part of Article 14. Similarly, in \"DTC v, MAZDOOR CONGRESS\" reported in (1991) Supp (1) SCC 6OO, the Apex Court observed that the rule of audi alteram partem enforces the equality clause in Article 14. Therefore, any administrative action which violates the rule of audi alteram partem is arbitrary and violative of Article 14. This Court opines that adminlstrative proceedings which entail significant civil consequences must be read consistent with the principle of natural justice to meet the requirement of Article L4. 27. In \"SAHARA INDIA (FIRM) (1) v. CIT\", reported in (2OOB) 14 SCC page 151, a two-Judge Bench of this Court was called upon to decide whether an opportunity of being heard has to be granted to an assessee before any direction could be issued under Section 142(2-A) oF the Income Tax Act, 1961 for special audit of the accounts of the assessee. This Court held that since the exercise of power under Section 142(2-A) of the Income Tax Act leads to serious civil consequences for the l2 assessee, the requirements oF observing the principles of natural justice is to be read into the said provisions. 24. In ..KESAR ENTERPRISES LTD v. STATE oF U.P reported in (2O11) 13 SCC page 733, wherein it is held that: \"the Court dealt with a challenge to the validity of Rule 633(7) of the Uttar Pradesh Excise Manuat which ailowed the imposition of a penalty for breach of the conditions of a bond without expressly issuing a show-cause notice. D.K.Jain, J. speaking on behalf of the two-ludge Bench held that a show-cause notice should be issued and an opportunity oF being heard should be afforded before an order under Rule 633( 7) is made. The Court held that the rule would be open to challengefor being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution unless the requirement of an opportunity to show cause is read into it. The Court observed: (SCC p. 743, paras 30 & 32) \"3O. Having considered the issue, framed in para 16, on the touchstone of the aforenoted legal principles in regard to the applicability of the principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion that keeping in view the nature, scope and consequences of direction under sub-rule (7) of Rule 633 of the Excise Manual, the principles of natural justice demand that a show- cause notice should be issued and an opportunaty of hearing should be afforded to the person concerned before an order under the said Rule is made, notwithstanding the fact that the said Rule does not contain any express provision for the affected party being given an opportunaty of being heard.\" 32. In our view, therefore, if the requirement of an opportunity to show cause is not read into the said Rule, an action thereunder would be open to challenge as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the power conferred on the competent authority under the provision is arbitrary.\" 29. In the present case Procedural Impropriety as evident and borne on record sance the standard procedure laid down under Section 297 and 318 of the Cantonment Act, 2OO6 had not been adhered to by the 2\"d respondent. It is settled law when a statute describes or requires tn r manner it ho in that manner or not at all. A) (M.Shankara Reddy Vs. Amara Ramakoteswara Rao reported in (2017) SCC Online Hyd 426). B) The Division Bench f Aoex Court in its iudqment dated O4.1O.2O2 1in Supertech Ltd.. Vs. Emerald n Court Owner Resident Welfare Association and Ors., c 3422 r d in 2O2L nline referring to Taylor I 34 Vs. Taylor, 1875 (1) Ch D426, Nazir Ahmed Vs. King Emperor reported in (193G) L.R.63 Ind Ap3t2 and Parbhani Transport Co-operative Society Ltd., Vs. The Regional Transport Authority, Aurangabad & Ors., reported in AIR 1960 SC 8O1 at para 13 observed as u nder: \"It is that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certaan way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all and that other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden, Hence when a statute requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner or not at all and other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. This Court too, as adopted this maxim. This rule provides that an expressly laid down mode of doing something necessarily implies a prohibition on doing it in any other way. 30. Takinq into consider the aforesaid facts and ation clrcumstances of the case, and in view of the law laid dow bv the Aoex Co rt in th vaflous Judoments as ( f eferred toande tracted above) and in the lio tof d iscussron s arnvedatas above. the Writ Petitionts we r for er dent No.2 i dir edn l5 y furthef aetion suant to the amDuq ned Public Notice vide No.SCB,/RS,/RooftoD Hoardinosl2()23l 1156 dated L2.6.2O23. However, it is cl arlv observed that this ord r will not come in the wav of the 2nd resoondent - Cantonment B ard to take anY aoorooriate ron tn was rt Cantonment Act. 2006 bv followinq the standard procedure pertainano to notace as orovaded under Sections 297 and 3tg of the Cantonment Act, 2O06. However, To, 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. BSR GJP there sh ll be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this writ petition shall stand closed. SD/. C. PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER The Secretary, For Defence, New Delhi, Union of lndia. The Chief Executive Officer, Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Sardar Patel Road, Court Compound, Secunderabad-500003 One CC to SRI CHETLURU SREENIVAS, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI K.R.KOTESHWAR RAO, SC FOR CANTONMENT BOARD loPUCl One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUI ,4AR, Dy. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF lNDlA, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad IOPUC] Two CD Copies c 1\" HIGH COURT DATED: 1111212023 ORDER WP.No.16851 of 2023 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS 1 HE S T41a 0 6 APB 2074 I oesIATC 90 o O t o .) * ert kN$U "